SELF-ESTEEM, ASPIRATIONS AND EXPECTATI ONS OF ADOLfSCE NTS WITH
PHYSICAL DISABILITY Paul Arnold 0 Melanie Chapman
Adolescence is a period in which the .4ble-bodied people often assume that future takes a new significance, and disabled people will be depressed, will important decisions about jobs and life mourn their condition and will want to be have to be made. Everyone has aspirations able-bodied (Lees and Shaw 1974). for what they wish to occur and Thomas (1978) argues that the self is a expectations of whether these really will social phenomenon. Bender (1981) claims happen. Aspirations and expectations are that ‘many individuals-including the not necessarily identical, and the families and employers of disabled relationship between hopes and expected persons, rehabilitation professionals and reality may be related to a person’s level handicapped people themselves-hold of self-esteem: the higher their selfnegative expectations toward the dis, esteem, the closer will be their aspirations . abled’: the danger is that those with and expectations. physical disability will themselves absorb Brewin (1988) defines self-esteem as ‘the these negative views. Research has shown subjective evaluation that one is a person that some people with physical disabilities of worth or value as opposed to the had low levels of self-esteem: Richardson evaluation that one is bad, incompetent or et al. (1964) reported that disabled people worthless’. Self-esteem is often seen as an described themselves in more negative evaluation of the information in our selfterms than able-bodied controls, and concept, of the constellation of processes Anderson and Clarke (1982) found that we use to describe ourselves to ourselves ‘In general, the handicapped group (Pope et al. 1988). Self-esteem has been presented frequently as lacking in selfseen as originating from various sources, confidence, having low self-esteem, and including the discrepancy between a . worrying about their handicaps and lack person’s actual and ideal self (Horney of skills, and in consequence very often 1950, Pope ef al. 1988), perceptions of the showing signs of real misery and attitudes of others (Festinger 1954) and depression’. attributional factors (Brewin 1988). Disabled people have often complained Horney and Pope and colleagues believe about the patronising attitudes of the that discrepancy between the actual and able-bodied (Orlansky and Heward 1981). ideal self will have a negative influence on Brewin (1988) notes that ‘chronically low self-esteem. It is often supposed that self-esteem . . . is likely, for instance, to people with physical disability have lower be associated with low expectations of levels of self-esteem than the able-bodied. future success”. Rosenberg (1965) claimed 9
97
--
U
&
3
5 0 4
2
s2 2
2 2
. zT
u)
C
U
-0 w
Y)
-0
d L
0
E
!2l 0
2 wl
.
that people with low self-esteem would tend to have lower aspirations and expectations. Kinn (1964) found that children with physical disability had . similar life goals to those of able-bodied children, but felt less able to achieve them. Some studies, however, have failed to find differences between the able-bodied and those with disabilities. Crocker and Major (1989) discuss ways in which I membership of a stigmatised group may help to protect the individual’s selfconcept. Members may attribute negative attitudes to prejudice against their group rather than themselves; to compare their level of success against other members of . their group rather than with the relatively advantagpd outgroup; and to selectively devalue areas in which their group has difficulties. Harvey and Greenway (1984) found ‘that congenital physical handicap was associated with an adverse effect on self-concept, but Burden and Parish (1983), in contrast, reported that the selfesteem of those with physical handicap was not consistently lower. ’ The present study examined the relationships between self-esteem and future aspirations and expectations concerning a variety of real work and life situations.
’
Method Subjects The adolescents were all in the fifth and lower-sixth forms of school or sixth-form colleges in Manchester. The 15 adolescents with physical disability (12 female, three male) attended’ Bethesda or Telford speciaI schools; their ages ranged from 15-5 to 17-8 years. The 35 able-bodied students (24 female, 11 male), aged between 15.4 and 17.6 years, attended Shena Simon College. Six of the disabled had cerebral palsy, two had spina bifida, two were asthmatic, two were ‘delicate’, one had a heart ailment and two had other conditions. Robenberg’s self-esteem scale and the ‘your future’ questionnnaire were completed by each student, without assistance, in a quiet classroom. 98
Self-esteem scale The Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale
consists of 10 questions. The students answered each question on a seven-point Likert scale (strongly agree = 7; strongly disagree = 1). The questions are: ( I ) I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. (2) I feel that’ I have a number of good qualities. (3) All in all, I am inclined to feel that 1 am a failure. (4) I am able to d o most things as well as most people. (5) I feel 1 d o not have much to be proud about. (6) 1 take a positive attitude towards myself. (7) On the whole, 1 am satisfied with myself. (8) I wish 1 could have more respect for myself. (9) I feel quite useless at times. (10) I sometimes think that I’m no good at all.
‘Your future’ questionnaire The 24 questions were chosen on the basis of a pilot study to find questions which young people considered important and realistic: (1) I w,ill be academically successful at schooVsixth-form college. (2) I will go on to further education once I finish school/sixth-form college (i.e. Polytechnic and University). (3) I will go on to a training scheme after I finish schooVsixth-form college. (4) Should I wish to or need to work, 1 will have no difficulty in finding a job. (5) I will get a job which I enjoy. (6) I will have a job managing other people. (7) My job will involve working with people rather than things. (8) I will have a poorly paid job. (9) I will have a job which involves using my hands. (10) I will have a job which is challenging. (1 1) I will have a job with good promotion opportunities. (12) I will be sacked from a job at some time in my working life. . (13) I will leave home by the age of 20. (14) I will leave home by the age of 25. (15) 1 will own my own home. (16) If I own my own home it will be large and expensive.
(17) I will own my own car.
(18) 1 will marry or live with a partier. (19) I will have children. (20) I will get divorced. (21) I will have a busy social life. (22) I will be lonely. (23) I will generally be happy with my life. (24) I will achieve my goals without difficulty. After each question, respondents had to indicate whether they wanfed the event described and also whether they actually expected the event to happen in the . future, on a five-point scale (yes, definitely = 5; yes, probably = 4; maybe/ unsure=3; no, probably not=2; no, definitely not = 1).
Results One-way analysis of variance revealed no over-all significant difference between tbe self-esteem scores of the two groups (Table I). Those with physical disability had significantly higher scores for question 4 (I am able to do most things as well as most people) 0,=0.030) and significantly lower scores for question 8 (I wish I could have more respect for myself) 0,=0*027). There were no significant differences over-all between the two groups as to expectations and aspirations (Tables I1 and 111). Mann-Whitney u tests showed four questions about future aspirations to be significantly different for the two groups. Those with physical disabilities had a higher mean score for question 3 (I will go. on to a training scheme after I finish schooVsixth-fGrm college), which reflects the likely reality. They had lower scores for questions 1, 14 and 15. Three questions which distinguished the groups most clearly as to future expectations were 3, which mirrored their aspiration responses, 18 (I will marry or live with a partner) and 19 (I will have children), for which the physically disabled had lower scores. The mean differences between aspirations and expectation scores were 5.06 (SD 4.39) for the physically disabled and 5.29 (SD 4.06) for the able-bodied. A Mann-Whitney u test showed the means not to be significantly different. No significant correlation was found between the self-esteem of those with
TABLE 1 Self-esteem .
ri
2I t3
Question
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
Total
Physically disabled Mean (SO)
.
Ablebodied Mean (SDj
i M
P
ri 01
f
6.07 (1.73) 5-46 (1.58) 0.237 5.67 (1.54) 6.06 (1.49) 0.406 6.28 (1-85) 6.06 (1-49) 0.654 6314 (1.65) 5.19 (1.22) 0.030 5.29 (2.40) 5.31 (1.65) 0.962 957 (1.86) 5.14 (1.68) * 0.439 4.92 (1-94) 5-06 (1.61) 0.813 3-37 i2-12j 5.06 (1.61) 0.027 3.50 (2.03) 4.34 (1.91) 0.177 4.93 (2.40) 4.77 (2.28) 0.831 54.24 (ii.93j 50.97 (11.78) 0.355
..
p
b
TABLE I 1 Aspirations
Question
Physically disabled Mean (SD)
I
3.28 (0.89) 3.11 ( I -23) 2.61 (1.09) 0.78 (1.00) ’ 3.67 (0-69) 1.83 (1.20) 2-70 (1.31) 8 0.28 (0.67) 9 2.56 (1.46) 10 3.11 (0.83) 11 3.00 12 0.61 13 2.12 14 2-72 I5 2-94 (1.26) 16 2.56 (1.65) 17 3.61 (0.70) 18 3.11 (0.83) 19 2.56 (1 -46) 20 0.47 (0.83) 21 3.56 (0.78) 22 0.17 (0.51) 23 3.82 (0.39) 24 2.81 (1.38) Total 57.00 (9.54) 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ablebodied Mean (SO)
3.89 3.40 0.60 0.63 3.97 2.29 3.42 0.38
(0.40) (0.88) (0.76) (0.94) (0.17) (1.24) (1-06)
(0-73) 1.80 (1.26) 3.40 (0.77) 3.43 (0.70) 0.63 i1-03j 2.57 (1.48) 3.56 (1.11) 3.71 (0.67) 2.49 (1.29) 3.66 (0.99) 3.37 (0.73) 3-09 (0.98) 0.74 (1.01). 3.20 (0.90) 0-26 (0.61) 3-71 (0.51) 3.43 (0.81) 61.50 (5.25)
P
0.001
0.122 0*000
0.453 0.036 0.068
’
0.018
0-447 0-072 0.046 0.045 0.278 0.121 0.002
’
0’007
0.482 0.172 0.076 0.141 0.320 0-180
0-409 0.418 0-040 0-149
physical disabilities and the difference between their expectations and aspirations. There was a significant negative correlation between the able-bodied adolescents’ self-esteem scores and the difference between their expectations and aspirations (r=O.36, p=O.O3).
Discussion The major finding students with able-bodied did not have significantly
99
TABLE 111 Expectations
Question
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Physically disabled Mean ISD) 2.83 2.89 2.33 2-23 2.61 1.44 2.33 I .56 2.67 2.61 .. 2.17 1.39
-10 11
~
12
(0.79)
(0.61) (1.15) (1.18) (0.92) (1.08) (0.85) ( I .04) (1.19)
(0.72) ( I .OS) (0.73) (0.84) (0.83) (0.94) (1.07) (0.86) (1.27) (0.72) (0.80) (0.98)
2.68
(1.27)
0.019
3.50 ( 1 . 1 1 ) 3.20 (0.93) I *74 .(1.12) 3.54 (0.70) 3.29 (0.62) 3.06 (0.94) I .34 (1.03) 2.94 (0.94) 0.89 (0.87) 2.97 (0.92) 1.89 (1.08) 56.66 (5.59)
0.000
I .76
(1.25)
I4
2.12 2.33 1.67 3.06 2.39 I .94 1 *27 2.61 0.78 3.47 2.25 52.77
( I .41)
.
P
2.71 3.11 0.77 1.63 2.89 I .82 3.09 1.17 1.71 2.94 2.80 1.49
13
15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Total
Able’bodied Mean (SO)
(1.18) (1.24)
(0.94) 19) (1.06) (0.96) (0.78) (0.81) (0.62) (1.13) (9.67)
0.495 0.242 0.000 0.008 0.058 0.017 0.008 0.205 0.022 0.015 0.002 0.441
0.005 0.238
o.ooe
0.000 0.000 0.479 0.079 0.272 0-055 0.4220.104
I
100
different levels of self-esteem. For question 4 (I am able to do most things as well as most people), the physically disabled scored significantly higher. This is not consistent with some earlier findings of lower levels of self-esteem (Richardson et al. 1964, Anderson and Clarke 1982, Harvey and Greenway 1984), but it does support the findings of Burden and Ppish (1983). This inconsistency can be explained in several ways. First, it may be that assumptions made about levels of self-esteem of physically disabled people are incorrect. Most of the theories are based on an implicitly ‘ablebodied’ perspective and assume that the disability will be viewed in a negative way by the physically disabled themselves. Research has shown, however, that there are positive aspects to physical disability. Fielding (1950) found that while 98 per cent of his subjects reported that they occasionally perceived their disability to be a disadvantage, 70 per cent also reported it to be a help in some areas oq their lives. Weinberg and Williams (1978) reported that the most commonly cited advantage of physical disability was that it provided goals and purposes to work
for. Orlansky and Heward (1981) found that people with physical disability did not always regard their disability in the way that able-bodied people imagined. Another source of positive self-image for the physically disabled is the finding by Mussen and Barker (1941) that ablebodied people rated those with physical disability more favourably than average, describing them as kinder, as well as more intelligent, persistent, creative and unselfish. According to Ray (1946), highschool students judged an individual with physical disability to be a better friend and to be conscientious and even-tempered. It is also important to remember that physical disability is only one aspect of a person’s self: Yuker (1965) argues that ‘body-image. should be placed in its proper perspective, as an element of the individual’s self-cognition and perception rather than an inclusive entity in itself’. . An alternative explanation for the present findings is that of Wright (1960), that ‘compensation’ may occur to combat the alleged inferiority feelings of those with physical disability. A more recent version of this theory is that of Crocker and Major (1989), who describe ways in which members of stigmatised groups, including those with physical disability, protect their self-image. A further factor is the effort made at schools today to enhance pupils’ self-esteem. Schools for the physically disabled emphasise achievement and success, not disability: positive attitudes are actively encouraged and form the basis of the school ethos, and special structured courses encourage independenke and social skills. On the other hand, however, it is possible that there may be a certain lack of realism among students in special schools, in that the schools may insulate them from harsher reality outside the school. Some pupils with physical disability did have a very low level of self-esteem (subject 9 had a self-esteem score of 19, against a mean score of 52.24 for the group). However, the lowest scores for the able-bodied were 19, 22 and 32, so very low self-esteem is not unique to those with physical disability. The hypothesis that self-esteem would . be negatively correlated with the difference between expectations and aspirations was
‘
‘
not supported in t h e case of those with physical disability. Their generally high self-esteem- scores may have contributed to a ceiling effect. The able-bodied did show an effect, which may have been a product of the larger sample or of differences in their values and beliefs. The results of the present study are encouraging for adolescents with disability and their teachers. It would be interesting to administer the same questionnaire to physically disabled students attending college with their able-bodied peers.
Accepted for publication 3rd October 1991.
N
Acknowledgments We thank the staff and pupils of Bethesda and Telford Schools and Shena Simon College; also Tricia Sloper of the Hester Adrian Research Centre and Brian Clark.
s\
E? pI’
NQI
’
0‘
Authors’ Appointments *Paul Arnold, Ph.D.; Melanie Chapman, BSc.; Department of Psychology, University of Manchesier, Oxford Road, Manchester MI3 9PL. ‘Correspondence to first author.
SUM MARY Fiftcen adolcscents with physical disabilities were compared with able-bodied controls by means of questionnaires to assess their self-esteem and their future aspirations and expectations. There was no significant difference for self-esteem between the two groups. This encouraging finding is inconsistent with earlier findings of low self-esteem. There was no significant correlation between the self-esteem of the physically disabled adolescents and the difference between their aspirations and expectations; however, there was a significant negative correlation for the able-bodied controls.
RESUME Auto-appreciation, aspirations et aitentes d’adolescents presenianf des incapacifes nioirices Des questionnaires ont permis d’evaluer I’auto-appreciation, les aspirations pour le futur et les attentes chez 15 adolescents presentant des incapacites rnotrices, compares avec des contrdes sans incapacites. II n’a pas ete trouve de differences d’auto-appreciation entre les deux groupes. Ces donnees encourageants contredisent les donnees anterieures de pauvre auto-appreciation. II n’y avail pas de correlation significative entre I’auto-appreciation des adolescents presentant des incapacites motrices et leurs aspirations ou attentes; il y avail en revanche une correlation negative significative chez les contrdes sans incapacites. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Selbstwertgefuhl, Wunsche und Erwartungen yon korperlich behinderten Jugendlichen Funfzehn korperlich behinderte Jugendliche wurden mit gesunden Kontrollen anhand von Fragenbogen verglichen, um ihr Selbstwertgefuhl und ihre Wunsche und Erwartungen fur die Zukunft zu erforschen. Es fand sich zwischen den beiden Gruppen kein Unterschied in Bezug auf das Selbstwertgefuhl. Dieses ermutigende Ergebnis widerlegt fruhere Befunde von einem niedrigen ‘Selbstwertgefiihl. Es gab keine signifikante Beziehung zwischen dem Selbstwertgefuhl der korperlich behinderten Jugendlichen und ihren Wunschen und Erwartungen; dagegen gab es fur die gesunden Kontrollen eine negative signifikante Korrelation. RESUMEN Autoeslima, aspiraciones y expectativas d e 10s adolescentes con dificultades fisicas Quince adolescentes con deficiencias fisicas fueron comparados con controles fisicamente capaces, por medio de cuestionarios para evaluar su autoestima y sus futuras aspiraciones y expectativas. No habia ninguna diferencia entre 10s dos grupos por lo que hacia a la autoes a Este hallazgo animador es inconsistente con hallazgos anteriores de baja estima. No habia c rrelacion significativa entre la autoestima de 10s adolescentes con incapacidad fisica y sus aspiraciones y expectativas. Sin embargo habia una correlation negative significativa en 10s control les fisicamente capaces.
5
References Anderson, E. M., Clarke, L. (1982) Disability in Adolescence. London: Methuen. Battle, J., Blowers, T. (1982) ‘A longitudinal comparative study of the self esteem of students in regular and special education classes.’ Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 100-102. Bender, L. F. (1981) ‘Changing attitudes toward disabled people.’ Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 23, 103-108. Brewin, C. R. (1988) Cognitive Foundations of Clinical Psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burden, P. R., Parish, T. S. (1983) ‘Exceptional and normal children’s descriptions of themselves.’ Education, 104, 204-205. Crocker, J., Major, B. (1989) ‘Social stigma and self
esteem: the self-protective properties of stigma.’ Psychological Review, 96, 608-630. Festinger, L. (1954) ‘A theory of social comparison processes.’ Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Fielding, 9. B. (1950) ‘Attitudes and aspects of adjustment of the orthopedically handicapped woman.’ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.) New York: Columbia University. Harvey, D. H. P., Greenway, A. P. (1984) ‘The selfconcept of physically handicapped children and their non-handicapped siblings: an empirical investigation.’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 213-284. Homey, K. (1950) Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: Norton. Kinn, W. T. (1964) ‘Self-reports of physically 3
101
handicapped and non-handicapped children.’ Disserrarion Abstracts, 24, 5 196-5 197. Lees, D., Shaw, S. (1974) Impairment, Disability and Handicap: 4 Multidisciplinary View. London: Heinemann Educational. Mussen, P. H., Barker, R. G. (1941) ‘Attitudes towards cripples.’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 39, 35 1-355. Orlansky. M. D., Heward, W.. L. (1981) Voices: Interviews with Handicapped People. London: Charles E. Merrill. Pope, A. W., McHale, S. M., Craighead, W. E. (1988) Self-esteem Enhancement with Children and Adolescents. Oxford: Pergamon. Ray, M . H. (1946) ‘The effect of crippled appearance on personality judgement.’ (Unpublished Masters thesis.) Stanford: Stanford University.
L
0
c In
102
Richardson, S. A., Hastorf, A. H., Dornbusch, ’ S; M. (1964) ‘The effect of physical disa;bility o n a” child’s description of himself. Child Development, 35, 893-907. Rosenberg, M . (1965) Society and rhe Adolescent Self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thhrnas, D. (1978) The Social Psychology of Childhood Disabiliry. London: Methuen. Weinberg, N., Williams, J . (1978) ‘How the physically disabled perceive their disabilities.’ Journal of Rehabilitation, 44, 31-33. Wright, B. A . (1960) Physical Disability-a Psychological Approach. New York: Harper & Row. Yuker. H. (1965) ‘Attitudes as determinants of behaviour.’ Journal of Rehabilitation, 31, 15-16.
PHYSICAL DISABILITY Paul Arnold 0 Melanie Chapman
Adolescence is a period in which the .4ble-bodied people often assume that future takes a new significance, and disabled people will be depressed, will important decisions about jobs and life mourn their condition and will want to be have to be made. Everyone has aspirations able-bodied (Lees and Shaw 1974). for what they wish to occur and Thomas (1978) argues that the self is a expectations of whether these really will social phenomenon. Bender (1981) claims happen. Aspirations and expectations are that ‘many individuals-including the not necessarily identical, and the families and employers of disabled relationship between hopes and expected persons, rehabilitation professionals and reality may be related to a person’s level handicapped people themselves-hold of self-esteem: the higher their selfnegative expectations toward the dis, esteem, the closer will be their aspirations . abled’: the danger is that those with and expectations. physical disability will themselves absorb Brewin (1988) defines self-esteem as ‘the these negative views. Research has shown subjective evaluation that one is a person that some people with physical disabilities of worth or value as opposed to the had low levels of self-esteem: Richardson evaluation that one is bad, incompetent or et al. (1964) reported that disabled people worthless’. Self-esteem is often seen as an described themselves in more negative evaluation of the information in our selfterms than able-bodied controls, and concept, of the constellation of processes Anderson and Clarke (1982) found that we use to describe ourselves to ourselves ‘In general, the handicapped group (Pope et al. 1988). Self-esteem has been presented frequently as lacking in selfseen as originating from various sources, confidence, having low self-esteem, and including the discrepancy between a . worrying about their handicaps and lack person’s actual and ideal self (Horney of skills, and in consequence very often 1950, Pope ef al. 1988), perceptions of the showing signs of real misery and attitudes of others (Festinger 1954) and depression’. attributional factors (Brewin 1988). Disabled people have often complained Horney and Pope and colleagues believe about the patronising attitudes of the that discrepancy between the actual and able-bodied (Orlansky and Heward 1981). ideal self will have a negative influence on Brewin (1988) notes that ‘chronically low self-esteem. It is often supposed that self-esteem . . . is likely, for instance, to people with physical disability have lower be associated with low expectations of levels of self-esteem than the able-bodied. future success”. Rosenberg (1965) claimed 9
97
--
U
&
3
5 0 4
2
s2 2
2 2
. zT
u)
C
U
-0 w
Y)
-0
d L
0
E
!2l 0
2 wl
.
that people with low self-esteem would tend to have lower aspirations and expectations. Kinn (1964) found that children with physical disability had . similar life goals to those of able-bodied children, but felt less able to achieve them. Some studies, however, have failed to find differences between the able-bodied and those with disabilities. Crocker and Major (1989) discuss ways in which I membership of a stigmatised group may help to protect the individual’s selfconcept. Members may attribute negative attitudes to prejudice against their group rather than themselves; to compare their level of success against other members of . their group rather than with the relatively advantagpd outgroup; and to selectively devalue areas in which their group has difficulties. Harvey and Greenway (1984) found ‘that congenital physical handicap was associated with an adverse effect on self-concept, but Burden and Parish (1983), in contrast, reported that the selfesteem of those with physical handicap was not consistently lower. ’ The present study examined the relationships between self-esteem and future aspirations and expectations concerning a variety of real work and life situations.
’
Method Subjects The adolescents were all in the fifth and lower-sixth forms of school or sixth-form colleges in Manchester. The 15 adolescents with physical disability (12 female, three male) attended’ Bethesda or Telford speciaI schools; their ages ranged from 15-5 to 17-8 years. The 35 able-bodied students (24 female, 11 male), aged between 15.4 and 17.6 years, attended Shena Simon College. Six of the disabled had cerebral palsy, two had spina bifida, two were asthmatic, two were ‘delicate’, one had a heart ailment and two had other conditions. Robenberg’s self-esteem scale and the ‘your future’ questionnnaire were completed by each student, without assistance, in a quiet classroom. 98
Self-esteem scale The Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale
consists of 10 questions. The students answered each question on a seven-point Likert scale (strongly agree = 7; strongly disagree = 1). The questions are: ( I ) I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. (2) I feel that’ I have a number of good qualities. (3) All in all, I am inclined to feel that 1 am a failure. (4) I am able to d o most things as well as most people. (5) I feel 1 d o not have much to be proud about. (6) 1 take a positive attitude towards myself. (7) On the whole, 1 am satisfied with myself. (8) I wish 1 could have more respect for myself. (9) I feel quite useless at times. (10) I sometimes think that I’m no good at all.
‘Your future’ questionnaire The 24 questions were chosen on the basis of a pilot study to find questions which young people considered important and realistic: (1) I w,ill be academically successful at schooVsixth-form college. (2) I will go on to further education once I finish school/sixth-form college (i.e. Polytechnic and University). (3) I will go on to a training scheme after I finish schooVsixth-form college. (4) Should I wish to or need to work, 1 will have no difficulty in finding a job. (5) I will get a job which I enjoy. (6) I will have a job managing other people. (7) My job will involve working with people rather than things. (8) I will have a poorly paid job. (9) I will have a job which involves using my hands. (10) I will have a job which is challenging. (1 1) I will have a job with good promotion opportunities. (12) I will be sacked from a job at some time in my working life. . (13) I will leave home by the age of 20. (14) I will leave home by the age of 25. (15) 1 will own my own home. (16) If I own my own home it will be large and expensive.
(17) I will own my own car.
(18) 1 will marry or live with a partier. (19) I will have children. (20) I will get divorced. (21) I will have a busy social life. (22) I will be lonely. (23) I will generally be happy with my life. (24) I will achieve my goals without difficulty. After each question, respondents had to indicate whether they wanfed the event described and also whether they actually expected the event to happen in the . future, on a five-point scale (yes, definitely = 5; yes, probably = 4; maybe/ unsure=3; no, probably not=2; no, definitely not = 1).
Results One-way analysis of variance revealed no over-all significant difference between tbe self-esteem scores of the two groups (Table I). Those with physical disability had significantly higher scores for question 4 (I am able to do most things as well as most people) 0,=0.030) and significantly lower scores for question 8 (I wish I could have more respect for myself) 0,=0*027). There were no significant differences over-all between the two groups as to expectations and aspirations (Tables I1 and 111). Mann-Whitney u tests showed four questions about future aspirations to be significantly different for the two groups. Those with physical disabilities had a higher mean score for question 3 (I will go. on to a training scheme after I finish schooVsixth-fGrm college), which reflects the likely reality. They had lower scores for questions 1, 14 and 15. Three questions which distinguished the groups most clearly as to future expectations were 3, which mirrored their aspiration responses, 18 (I will marry or live with a partner) and 19 (I will have children), for which the physically disabled had lower scores. The mean differences between aspirations and expectation scores were 5.06 (SD 4.39) for the physically disabled and 5.29 (SD 4.06) for the able-bodied. A Mann-Whitney u test showed the means not to be significantly different. No significant correlation was found between the self-esteem of those with
TABLE 1 Self-esteem .
ri
2I t3
Question
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
Total
Physically disabled Mean (SO)
.
Ablebodied Mean (SDj
i M
P
ri 01
f
6.07 (1.73) 5-46 (1.58) 0.237 5.67 (1.54) 6.06 (1.49) 0.406 6.28 (1-85) 6.06 (1-49) 0.654 6314 (1.65) 5.19 (1.22) 0.030 5.29 (2.40) 5.31 (1.65) 0.962 957 (1.86) 5.14 (1.68) * 0.439 4.92 (1-94) 5-06 (1.61) 0.813 3-37 i2-12j 5.06 (1.61) 0.027 3.50 (2.03) 4.34 (1.91) 0.177 4.93 (2.40) 4.77 (2.28) 0.831 54.24 (ii.93j 50.97 (11.78) 0.355
..
p
b
TABLE I 1 Aspirations
Question
Physically disabled Mean (SD)
I
3.28 (0.89) 3.11 ( I -23) 2.61 (1.09) 0.78 (1.00) ’ 3.67 (0-69) 1.83 (1.20) 2-70 (1.31) 8 0.28 (0.67) 9 2.56 (1.46) 10 3.11 (0.83) 11 3.00 12 0.61 13 2.12 14 2-72 I5 2-94 (1.26) 16 2.56 (1.65) 17 3.61 (0.70) 18 3.11 (0.83) 19 2.56 (1 -46) 20 0.47 (0.83) 21 3.56 (0.78) 22 0.17 (0.51) 23 3.82 (0.39) 24 2.81 (1.38) Total 57.00 (9.54) 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ablebodied Mean (SO)
3.89 3.40 0.60 0.63 3.97 2.29 3.42 0.38
(0.40) (0.88) (0.76) (0.94) (0.17) (1.24) (1-06)
(0-73) 1.80 (1.26) 3.40 (0.77) 3.43 (0.70) 0.63 i1-03j 2.57 (1.48) 3.56 (1.11) 3.71 (0.67) 2.49 (1.29) 3.66 (0.99) 3.37 (0.73) 3-09 (0.98) 0.74 (1.01). 3.20 (0.90) 0-26 (0.61) 3-71 (0.51) 3.43 (0.81) 61.50 (5.25)
P
0.001
0.122 0*000
0.453 0.036 0.068
’
0.018
0-447 0-072 0.046 0.045 0.278 0.121 0.002
’
0’007
0.482 0.172 0.076 0.141 0.320 0-180
0-409 0.418 0-040 0-149
physical disabilities and the difference between their expectations and aspirations. There was a significant negative correlation between the able-bodied adolescents’ self-esteem scores and the difference between their expectations and aspirations (r=O.36, p=O.O3).
Discussion The major finding students with able-bodied did not have significantly
99
TABLE 111 Expectations
Question
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Physically disabled Mean ISD) 2.83 2.89 2.33 2-23 2.61 1.44 2.33 I .56 2.67 2.61 .. 2.17 1.39
-10 11
~
12
(0.79)
(0.61) (1.15) (1.18) (0.92) (1.08) (0.85) ( I .04) (1.19)
(0.72) ( I .OS) (0.73) (0.84) (0.83) (0.94) (1.07) (0.86) (1.27) (0.72) (0.80) (0.98)
2.68
(1.27)
0.019
3.50 ( 1 . 1 1 ) 3.20 (0.93) I *74 .(1.12) 3.54 (0.70) 3.29 (0.62) 3.06 (0.94) I .34 (1.03) 2.94 (0.94) 0.89 (0.87) 2.97 (0.92) 1.89 (1.08) 56.66 (5.59)
0.000
I .76
(1.25)
I4
2.12 2.33 1.67 3.06 2.39 I .94 1 *27 2.61 0.78 3.47 2.25 52.77
( I .41)
.
P
2.71 3.11 0.77 1.63 2.89 I .82 3.09 1.17 1.71 2.94 2.80 1.49
13
15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Total
Able’bodied Mean (SO)
(1.18) (1.24)
(0.94) 19) (1.06) (0.96) (0.78) (0.81) (0.62) (1.13) (9.67)
0.495 0.242 0.000 0.008 0.058 0.017 0.008 0.205 0.022 0.015 0.002 0.441
0.005 0.238
o.ooe
0.000 0.000 0.479 0.079 0.272 0-055 0.4220.104
I
100
different levels of self-esteem. For question 4 (I am able to do most things as well as most people), the physically disabled scored significantly higher. This is not consistent with some earlier findings of lower levels of self-esteem (Richardson et al. 1964, Anderson and Clarke 1982, Harvey and Greenway 1984), but it does support the findings of Burden and Ppish (1983). This inconsistency can be explained in several ways. First, it may be that assumptions made about levels of self-esteem of physically disabled people are incorrect. Most of the theories are based on an implicitly ‘ablebodied’ perspective and assume that the disability will be viewed in a negative way by the physically disabled themselves. Research has shown, however, that there are positive aspects to physical disability. Fielding (1950) found that while 98 per cent of his subjects reported that they occasionally perceived their disability to be a disadvantage, 70 per cent also reported it to be a help in some areas oq their lives. Weinberg and Williams (1978) reported that the most commonly cited advantage of physical disability was that it provided goals and purposes to work
for. Orlansky and Heward (1981) found that people with physical disability did not always regard their disability in the way that able-bodied people imagined. Another source of positive self-image for the physically disabled is the finding by Mussen and Barker (1941) that ablebodied people rated those with physical disability more favourably than average, describing them as kinder, as well as more intelligent, persistent, creative and unselfish. According to Ray (1946), highschool students judged an individual with physical disability to be a better friend and to be conscientious and even-tempered. It is also important to remember that physical disability is only one aspect of a person’s self: Yuker (1965) argues that ‘body-image. should be placed in its proper perspective, as an element of the individual’s self-cognition and perception rather than an inclusive entity in itself’. . An alternative explanation for the present findings is that of Wright (1960), that ‘compensation’ may occur to combat the alleged inferiority feelings of those with physical disability. A more recent version of this theory is that of Crocker and Major (1989), who describe ways in which members of stigmatised groups, including those with physical disability, protect their self-image. A further factor is the effort made at schools today to enhance pupils’ self-esteem. Schools for the physically disabled emphasise achievement and success, not disability: positive attitudes are actively encouraged and form the basis of the school ethos, and special structured courses encourage independenke and social skills. On the other hand, however, it is possible that there may be a certain lack of realism among students in special schools, in that the schools may insulate them from harsher reality outside the school. Some pupils with physical disability did have a very low level of self-esteem (subject 9 had a self-esteem score of 19, against a mean score of 52.24 for the group). However, the lowest scores for the able-bodied were 19, 22 and 32, so very low self-esteem is not unique to those with physical disability. The hypothesis that self-esteem would . be negatively correlated with the difference between expectations and aspirations was
‘
‘
not supported in t h e case of those with physical disability. Their generally high self-esteem- scores may have contributed to a ceiling effect. The able-bodied did show an effect, which may have been a product of the larger sample or of differences in their values and beliefs. The results of the present study are encouraging for adolescents with disability and their teachers. It would be interesting to administer the same questionnaire to physically disabled students attending college with their able-bodied peers.
Accepted for publication 3rd October 1991.
N
Acknowledgments We thank the staff and pupils of Bethesda and Telford Schools and Shena Simon College; also Tricia Sloper of the Hester Adrian Research Centre and Brian Clark.
s\
E? pI’
NQI
’
0‘
Authors’ Appointments *Paul Arnold, Ph.D.; Melanie Chapman, BSc.; Department of Psychology, University of Manchesier, Oxford Road, Manchester MI3 9PL. ‘Correspondence to first author.
SUM MARY Fiftcen adolcscents with physical disabilities were compared with able-bodied controls by means of questionnaires to assess their self-esteem and their future aspirations and expectations. There was no significant difference for self-esteem between the two groups. This encouraging finding is inconsistent with earlier findings of low self-esteem. There was no significant correlation between the self-esteem of the physically disabled adolescents and the difference between their aspirations and expectations; however, there was a significant negative correlation for the able-bodied controls.
RESUME Auto-appreciation, aspirations et aitentes d’adolescents presenianf des incapacifes nioirices Des questionnaires ont permis d’evaluer I’auto-appreciation, les aspirations pour le futur et les attentes chez 15 adolescents presentant des incapacites rnotrices, compares avec des contrdes sans incapacites. II n’a pas ete trouve de differences d’auto-appreciation entre les deux groupes. Ces donnees encourageants contredisent les donnees anterieures de pauvre auto-appreciation. II n’y avail pas de correlation significative entre I’auto-appreciation des adolescents presentant des incapacites motrices et leurs aspirations ou attentes; il y avail en revanche une correlation negative significative chez les contrdes sans incapacites. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Selbstwertgefuhl, Wunsche und Erwartungen yon korperlich behinderten Jugendlichen Funfzehn korperlich behinderte Jugendliche wurden mit gesunden Kontrollen anhand von Fragenbogen verglichen, um ihr Selbstwertgefuhl und ihre Wunsche und Erwartungen fur die Zukunft zu erforschen. Es fand sich zwischen den beiden Gruppen kein Unterschied in Bezug auf das Selbstwertgefuhl. Dieses ermutigende Ergebnis widerlegt fruhere Befunde von einem niedrigen ‘Selbstwertgefiihl. Es gab keine signifikante Beziehung zwischen dem Selbstwertgefuhl der korperlich behinderten Jugendlichen und ihren Wunschen und Erwartungen; dagegen gab es fur die gesunden Kontrollen eine negative signifikante Korrelation. RESUMEN Autoeslima, aspiraciones y expectativas d e 10s adolescentes con dificultades fisicas Quince adolescentes con deficiencias fisicas fueron comparados con controles fisicamente capaces, por medio de cuestionarios para evaluar su autoestima y sus futuras aspiraciones y expectativas. No habia ninguna diferencia entre 10s dos grupos por lo que hacia a la autoes a Este hallazgo animador es inconsistente con hallazgos anteriores de baja estima. No habia c rrelacion significativa entre la autoestima de 10s adolescentes con incapacidad fisica y sus aspiraciones y expectativas. Sin embargo habia una correlation negative significativa en 10s control les fisicamente capaces.
5
References Anderson, E. M., Clarke, L. (1982) Disability in Adolescence. London: Methuen. Battle, J., Blowers, T. (1982) ‘A longitudinal comparative study of the self esteem of students in regular and special education classes.’ Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 100-102. Bender, L. F. (1981) ‘Changing attitudes toward disabled people.’ Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 23, 103-108. Brewin, C. R. (1988) Cognitive Foundations of Clinical Psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burden, P. R., Parish, T. S. (1983) ‘Exceptional and normal children’s descriptions of themselves.’ Education, 104, 204-205. Crocker, J., Major, B. (1989) ‘Social stigma and self
esteem: the self-protective properties of stigma.’ Psychological Review, 96, 608-630. Festinger, L. (1954) ‘A theory of social comparison processes.’ Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Fielding, 9. B. (1950) ‘Attitudes and aspects of adjustment of the orthopedically handicapped woman.’ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.) New York: Columbia University. Harvey, D. H. P., Greenway, A. P. (1984) ‘The selfconcept of physically handicapped children and their non-handicapped siblings: an empirical investigation.’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 213-284. Homey, K. (1950) Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: Norton. Kinn, W. T. (1964) ‘Self-reports of physically 3
101
handicapped and non-handicapped children.’ Disserrarion Abstracts, 24, 5 196-5 197. Lees, D., Shaw, S. (1974) Impairment, Disability and Handicap: 4 Multidisciplinary View. London: Heinemann Educational. Mussen, P. H., Barker, R. G. (1941) ‘Attitudes towards cripples.’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 39, 35 1-355. Orlansky. M. D., Heward, W.. L. (1981) Voices: Interviews with Handicapped People. London: Charles E. Merrill. Pope, A. W., McHale, S. M., Craighead, W. E. (1988) Self-esteem Enhancement with Children and Adolescents. Oxford: Pergamon. Ray, M . H. (1946) ‘The effect of crippled appearance on personality judgement.’ (Unpublished Masters thesis.) Stanford: Stanford University.
L
0
c In
102
Richardson, S. A., Hastorf, A. H., Dornbusch, ’ S; M. (1964) ‘The effect of physical disa;bility o n a” child’s description of himself. Child Development, 35, 893-907. Rosenberg, M . (1965) Society and rhe Adolescent Self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thhrnas, D. (1978) The Social Psychology of Childhood Disabiliry. London: Methuen. Weinberg, N., Williams, J . (1978) ‘How the physically disabled perceive their disabilities.’ Journal of Rehabilitation, 44, 31-33. Wright, B. A . (1960) Physical Disability-a Psychological Approach. New York: Harper & Row. Yuker. H. (1965) ‘Attitudes as determinants of behaviour.’ Journal of Rehabilitation, 31, 15-16.
